Yesterday, we brought you a classic example of How Liberals Think. Step one: identify a problem. Step two: propose "massive" government welfare programs to address it. The column was plucked from the pages of the Boston Globe. Today, the Globe's Big Apple corporate parent, the New York Times, gives another good illustration of the mindset.
As the title of its editorial indicates, Help for the $82,000 Family makes the case that families earning that much, or perhaps even more -- in excess of 300% of the poverty level -- should be entitled to participate in a healthcare welfare program known as S-chip.
Discussing the Boston Globe column, I noted that the author never bothered to even estimate the cost of his admittedly "massive" welfare proposal, or how many more jobs the higher taxes thereby inevitably engendered would kill. There is a similar inadvertent irony in the Times editorial. In making the case for the very high eligibility limit in the Empire State, the Times observes:
A person living in New York City may pay more than twice as much for the same goods and services as a person living in, say, Omaha, Houston or Atlanta.
Notice anything there? The cities the Times cites with a lower cost of living are all in red states. In ultra blue-state New York, the cost of living is high. What are the causes? Let's start with the fact that New York leads the nation in combined state and local taxes. As for NYC in particular, a recent study found the combined state and local tax burden is nearly 50% higher than it is in other major cities. And what causes NYC to suffer such inordinately high taxes? According to that same study: "the heavy tax levy is being fueled largely by Medicaid and public assistance costs."
Let's summarize:
- High spending on healthcare welfare programs causes New York to have exceptionally high taxes.
- Those high taxes in turn contribute to a cost of living in New York City double that of other big cities.
- The New York Times relies on that high cost of living to justify. . . vastly expanded eligibility and spending on those same welfare programs.
A classic vicious cycle. Of course in the case of the Times, the cycle isn't vicious at all. The paper doesn't bother to disguise its real philosophy: "it is simply good public policy to insure as many children as possible." With adults surely to follow. Better living for all through ever-bigger government.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And don't forget: for
September 2, 2007 - 06:14 ET by motherbeltAnd don't forget: for purposes of the SCHIP program, one's "kids" are defined as up to 25 years old.
When liberals propose taxing only "the rich" in one form or another, they often define that as more than $75,000 a year. But at that same level and more, a family is defined as "poor" for purposes of free insurance for their kids. Gotta love it: take from one pocket and put it into the other.
NOT that I am supporting the program ...
September 2, 2007 - 10:32 ET by drillanwrBut I can see covering a college student (tech school even) under such a program, as some parents' insurance companies have cut off ages in their policies. However, I believe some universities make available to purchase health insurance for students. However, if the 20-something "child" is just sitting around on his ass eating pizza out of a box in front of the Wii all day ...
But as Limbaugh puts it, at age 25 the "child" could have several kids of their own.
Most health
September 2, 2007 - 15:18 ET by bassndudeMost health insurance covers the child so long as they are in school, living in the home or under age 25. So if a child is under 25 and in school and living in a dorm, they are covered under the policy as long as the premium is paid.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Not-so-empty nest
September 2, 2007 - 19:14 ET by nkviking75Lots of parents will be thrilled with a government health plan that gives college and post-college age adult children an incentive to live with Mommy and Daddy.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
They've gotta be in enrolled in college
September 2, 2007 - 22:30 ET by Scout FinchAnd taking at least 12 credit hours. To be on mom and dad's regular insurance. I'm sure s-chips allows any pizza-gnawing post-teen though.
That is the plan....
September 2, 2007 - 08:32 ET by c5thenTax everybody at 100% (in effect make everyone work for the government) and then be the deciders of who gets what.
Why they keep trying to emulate the Soviet system that proved it's unsustainability is beyond my comprehension. It must be because they want to emulate the Politbureau and be the "elite" and powerful in a system where "all are equal".
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
How Liberals "Think"?
September 2, 2007 - 09:12 ET by iveseenitallLiberals don't "think", they "feel". One example is how they deal with things on a daily basis. Details mean nothing to them. They propose based on their "feelings" and completely disregard reality. If they can walk away from a policy meeting feeling good about themselves, that is all that matters. Add their personal vindictiveness toward anyone who even dares to question their soft-headedness, couple it with their lazy work habits, and you have a formula for failure. The failures of the modern "liberals" have brought our nation to its knees. God help us if they win the presidency next time.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Wait...
September 2, 2007 - 11:08 ET by cleverpigI read this and thought "Wait, why is a city paying Medicaid?"
Lo and behold, the first paragraph of the study you linked makes clear that the reason NYC has high Medicaid expenses is that for some reason, probably historical, NYC pays a share of the state Medicaid program. Most cities bear no Medicaid burden because everything is covered at the state level.
Of course, your post doesn't mention that when describing the "vicious circle." You make it sound as though NYC must have high Medicaid costs because its program spends more than others. That may or may not be true, but there is no evidence in your study (at least as described in the article) to support that claim.
The $82,000 Poor
September 2, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Lame CherryI know that it is easy to satire this as Limbaugh and others have done, but can not Fred Thompson utilize this for the common American supporting the GOP as they can understand this issue.
Is not something wrong with a system where 82,000 dollars is considered in need of welfare.....of course it is.
Most of us can remember at least as children going with our mothers into a grocery store and for 20 dollars we got 4 huge bags of food. We can remember gas at 35 cents, really nice houses where rich people lived were $50,000 and Gramma and Grampa could live comfortable on $200 a month.
People do not seem to understand that houses, gas, groceries or the cost of living has not gone up........but inflation has driven up prices BY MAKING THE US DOLLAR CHEAP so it takes more money to live.
Reaganomics was featured here yesterday and I mentioned Milton Friedman the genius who built upon the Adam Smith and Benjamin Franklin doctrines how money supply and capitalism works so all people prosper. For people who lived through Richard Nixon price controls and Jimmy Carter stagflation we remember prices jumping by 5 dollars per month on items....and it was cheaper to buy things that month than wait a month as the dollar was cheapening so fast.
Those were the days when Argentina too was an economic disaster in prices raising 300 percent a month.
What as I sit here am trying to explain is Ronald Reagan proved what I still consider could not happen, but it did in the 1980's by having low interest loans, high interest bank savings accounts, NO inflation and in fact price deflation with wages increasing.
That is the economy Americans need to have restored. It does no one any good to have your home which you paid $100,000 for going to $150,000........because your house did not increase in value ALL THAT HAPPENED WAS THE DOLLAR DECREASED IN VALUE.....and while you ponder your $50,000 increase you do not notice that increase is eaten up by food, gas, interest and cost of living inflation.
I would beg if it would help for Fred Thompson and the GOP to get that point. America should be a place where every working citizen should be able to become a millionaire TO AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE, LIVING AND RETIREMENT.
I have advocated that income tax free corporations doing deep sea mining to sell metals to the Eurasians would create the Franklin wealth to increase money supply and make America a lender nation again bringing prosperity in the balance of trade. I will also bet that there is more renewable crude oil under the ocean just under the surface in gushers to plunge oil prices which will stop all of this nonsense about funded terrorism, Russian aggression to the world and America in debt.
There is an absolute way out of this mess with real solutions. These corporations for profit would pay no taxes as would employees if they invested back into America. In numbers this would be TRILLIONS of dollars not in inflationary terms, but in literal wealth created terms. For students of history, America would be awash with money as the British Empire was in the days of Victoria.
Ronald Reagan proved this can be done and with certain public investment projects driven by private industry like a new tube train linking the United States with 200 mph underground trains, each state would then share the wealth and our airline industries could transfer part of their carry capacity to trains and Detroit could make the new technology which would all employ high paying jobs for Americans.
There are numerous chain reactions which will be enabling to spur this American economy for the benefit of citizens. I designed a gravitational water "engine" which is perpetual in generating electricity which is nothing more than a counter weight clock that uses high pressure pumps to move water around, all self contained, all clean........which would power America in electricity in a new industry we could export and license around the world.
Everything is there and just waiting for a national leader to convince the banking cartels to get on board and abandon their petty control cliques as what they are doing is going to start nuclear and biological wars in the next decade which will even consume them.
This tax enslavement of Americans must end. It is as repulsive today as when Edmund Burke in the British Parliment railed against it as enslavement of the colonial Americans over 200 years ago.
Milton Friedman found a man in Ronald Reagan who understood this. I know if enough people keep informing someone like Fred Thompson enough that he will understand it.
I will repeat my doctrine which I formed now 20 years ago, "America should be a place where EVERY citizen can become a millionaire".
That is something the American voter understand, will grasp when you show them Reagan proved it economically and that the British lived it by generating wealth. This is the 2008 direction the United States of America must seize for our economic and security future. America becoming so economically powerful that no nation would dare attack us will stop the terrorism and the need for wars as America through leverage can persuade nations to join our lead as it is the proven best system.
God bless.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I fear what the repub's may
September 2, 2007 - 13:25 ET by bigtimerI fear what the repub's may try to do with this SCHIP BS coming up soon with Grassley and others leading the way.
I fear they will think this is something the 'R's are afraid of... like the whimpering cowards they are most times (not all mind you, but they are in the minority most times) to not vote for with the elections coming up in '08...afraid this will be used against them in campaign ad's and such.
Sure hope I am wrong.
That's why
September 2, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Scout FinchRepublicans have to step up and be Republicans, not Democrat-lite bleeding hearts. It's no wonder they're are so many of us wandering in the desert, searching for conservative fiscalism in government. Hey, I'm anti-abortion like any other Republican. But first and foremost, we need fiscal conservatives BADLY.
Addendum to Step 1
September 2, 2007 - 14:18 ET by mattmIf there is no problem to identify, make one up, especially one that lends itself to demagoguery.
The health-care 'crisis' in this country is threefold:
1. Their is no truly free market in healthcare. There's either a government or an HMO middle-man driving up costs and driving quality down.
2. There are way too many opportunistic Leftist politicians who see another chance to grow government and grab power for themselves.
3 The media are promoting the Big-Government side of the issue and are helping the power-grabbers with their demagoguery.
mattm... You said that so
September 2, 2007 - 14:20 ET by bigtimermattm...
You said that so well.
...
September 2, 2007 - 14:38 ET by mattmThanx